[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Precautionary principle



Hi Ted:

I am posting this because I think it may be of interest to others (hope I'm
right).

I believe you can get the whole study by writing to Tanya Tengs at the
Harvard School of Public Health, or get her current address from the RISK
ASSESSMENT article (RISK ASSESSMENT is the peer-reviewed journal of the
Society for Risk Analysis).

The article describes the methods very well.  It was strictly an economic
study, and the "year of life saved in the U. S." included some kind of
average earning power during that year, and is actually "person-years of life
saved." Since measles, smallpox, polio, etc. are fatal to many children, the
trivial cost of a vaccination (free to maybe $25) compared to $20,000 for the
year of life saved (or even $10,000) multiplied by the number of children
gives a "negative cost" (or positive financial benefit, if you will).  By
comparison, the cost of seat belts in school buses is $2800 per year of life
saved, because relatively few children die or receive life-shortening
injuries in school bus accidents.  The reason the cost of pollution control
is so large is that cancer is largely a disease of old age, so relatively few
"years of life" are involved.

The article is very good.  The authors even take the school bus example and
point out that there may be other reasons for putting seat belts on school
buses -- that the study couldn't measure  the emotional cost of a child's
death.

I cannot resist adding that one problem with application of the
"precautionary principle" is that in the current age of victimhood and risk
aversion, nobody wants to let go of that principle even when the science and
evidence contradict it.  If you want to read a really excellent in-depth
discussion of this kind of thing, I recommend the article on dietary fat in
SCIENCE, March 30, 2001.

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com